Skip to main content

Accused cannot be added to a pending case at mere asking of police

Lower courts should not include every other individual pinned down by the police as an accused in criminal cases without calling for materials to prove their involvement and getting satisfied, prima facie, about the need to prosecute them, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice S. Nagamuthu made the observation while setting aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate at Uthamapalayam in Theni district on March 12, 2007 including two individuals as additional accused in a cheating case at the mere asking of the Rayappanpatti police and without any basis.

The judge pointed out that the police had initially booked the case against only one individual. Subsequently, an Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the Magistrate to add two more individuals as accused in the case. The petition did not contain any detail about the materials available with the prosecution to array the two as additional accused and as to how were they involved in the crime. Yet, the Magistrate allowed the petition and added the duo as accused forcing them to approach the High Court.

Shocked over the injustice that had been caused to the two individuals, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said: “In the instant case, I regret to say that both the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Judicial Magistrate have failed to discharge their legal obligation in a proper manner.

“I do not understand as to how a Judicial Magistrate can pass such a non-speaking order without reference to the evidence and without reference to the requirement under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. This is a classic example of how a judicial order should not be passed by any court.”

The judge directed the High Court Registry to forward of a copy of his order to the Magistrate, who was presiding over the court in Uthamapalayam in March 2007, “if he is in service even now and wherever he is, so that he does not repeat the same mistake in the future.”

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/accused-cannot-be-added-to-a-pending-case-at-mere-asking-of-police-says-high-court/article7128115.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more